| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | onedayonevote (0)
05/26/2008 | Yes!!! Have a National Primary based on popular vote. Abolish the delegates and the Electoral College...Throw in some campaign finance reform to limit deep pocket front loading and you might even bring back some democracy to America. We are talking about when the vote happens, not when campaigns can start campaigning. So, if you have less money, you start earlier and build Grasroots State by State.
Sign the Petition for a National Primary at: http://www.onedayonevote.com
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | irishgit (151)
06/20/2007 | I dislike the idea, primarily because it will give a huge advantage to the candidate with the deepest pockets.
Under the current system, a relatively underfunded candidate can do well in one of the early primaries, attract more funding, gather some momentum and seriously contend.
In a single national primary, such a candidate would be all but crippled, and out of contention before the race even began.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | sfalconer (22)
04/26/2007 | And the point of this would be?
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | VirileVagabond (37)
12/17/2006 |  Assuming that this suggestion (namely a national primary) refers to a set day for all state primaries rather than a national primary that would effectively eliminate the federalist system (and in some ways the electoral college), I can see both relatively equal advantages and disadvantages. The most material benefit would be that some states (e.g. New Hampshire and Iowa) wouldn't have an inordinate influence on the process, which I'm surmising is the primary objection leading to this proposed reform. I've always considered New Hampshire's statute that directs that its primary come first to be a bit offensive, so I'm somewhat sympathetic to this argument. In addition (as some other comments have noted), more candidates will possibly stay in the race longer, resulting in (hopefully) more discussion of the issues. On the other hand, staggered primaries do allow hopeless candidates to recognize a lost cause, resulting in less economic waste (i.e. losing candidates stop spending money) and more focus on the frontrunners who will ultimately be on the ballot. With that said, I'd have to say that we should simply pick our poison and be done with it for the foreseeable future.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Drummond (60)
02/27/2006 | It might be a good idea practically, but I enjoy the drama of the current system.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Dwain (0)
11/04/2005 | Would eliminate the influence of early primaries. Is part of the solution to eliminate any primaries, and moving to run-off elections?
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GenghisTheHun (177)
10/18/2005 | Please repeat after me. We are a federal republic and not a direct democracy. We are a federal republic and not a direct democracy. We are a federal republic and not a direct democracy.
(1 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 1 agree) |
 | 37102002 (2)
01/30/2005 | this would keep more candidates in the race longer, probably a good thing.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | LanceRoxas (41)
10/20/2004 | Bad idea once again because it destroys the concept of federalism that has proven a great check and balance on the factionalism that would at times lead us in the wrong direction.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | lincolnsandcadillacs (4)
06/05/2004 | I agree with the previous reviewer. Once one state is won by one candidate, most of the other states will also vote for that same candidate. With the system we have now, momemtum decides who wins the primaries and is normally decided by the first state. Kerry may have sounded like a great candidate during primary time, but after the primaries, people are scratching their heads and wondering why they voted for him.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | abichara (63)
04/05/2004 | Replacing state primaries with a national primary day is an interesting idea. Today the party primaries occur in a long spread of time between January and September of an election year. The result is that elections become a long drawn out affair. Money becomes ever more important is such situations. campaign finance laws won't fix the problem, making the election year shorter will help out a great deal. Having one primary day, preferably close to Election Day, will give all the voters one chance to decide the primaries. You won't have small states like New Hampshire and Iowa determine whether a candidate has momentum or not. They will be decided on all at the same time on their merits. The winning candidates go on to election day. I personally advocate getting rid of party primaries permanently and going to a runoff system. All the candidates that are running in the Republican and Democratic parties run on the first round on election day, no party line voting. The two winning candidates then go on to the second round of voting, the one with the majority vote wins the day. Primary systems don't include the entire voting population, many people are independents and they don't get a choice as to who would be the nominee of the repective parties. I don't have a problem with a national primary day however.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-11 OF 11 | View All |
